Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2019, 09:05:14 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Keyboard Jacobinism)
  Zimbabwe to nationalise all land (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Zimbabwe to nationalise all land  (Read 8995 times)
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« on: June 24, 2004, 09:01:02 pm »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Al,

When you grow up, you'll realize that socialism in practice IS feudalism.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2004, 08:01:35 am »

Jens,

Yes, I'm quite aware of what feudalism is, so I don't need your lectures or any outside reading references. It's painfully clear from your post that my comment went way over your head.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2004, 08:16:19 am »
« Edited: June 25, 2004, 08:17:01 am by MarkDel »

Al,

Come on, I know you're a smart guy. Forget for a minute that you and Jens are in love with theoretical bullsh*t and then go back and read what I said again. This has nothing to do with DEFINITIONS or THEORY...I am way past that. I'm talking about the practical impact of application of socialism on average citizens...try thinking in the real world and outside the cozy confines of the classroom.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2004, 09:30:54 am »

Al,

Come on, I know you're a smart guy. Forget for a minute that you and Jens are in love with theoretical bullsh*t and then go back and read what I said again. This has nothing to do with DEFINITIONS or THEORY...I am way past that. I'm talking about the practical impact of application of socialism on average citizens...try thinking in the real world and outside the cozy confines of the classroom.

Well I would argue that the Leninism is nothing more than "cargo cult socialism" and that as a result none of the old Commie countries can be (IMO) thought of as Socialist.

In the real world, the post war Labour government over here changed the U.K for the better by introducing the NHS and also saved millions of real people from dire poverty.

Al,

The point I'm trying to make is that since the very base principles of socialism are in fact contrary to human nature, that what emerges from attempts to establish pure socialism is essentially glorifed totalitarianism. The Soviet Union and virtually every other Marxist/Socialist state in the 20th Century serves as a pretty good proof of my hypothesis. As for you point about England, employing a few policies consistent with socialist tendencies is NOT the same as employing a true socialist state. Even in the US we have adopted certain policies that have socialist roots, but that doesn't mean we a re a socialist country, nor is England.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2004, 03:28:27 pm »

Jens,

I refer you to my last post in which I explained to Al why I feel that the socialism of which you and he speak is purely theoretical and has no practical application because it is counter intuitive to human nature. No nation that has fully adopted socialist principles has ever turned out to be anything other than a dictatorship, where precious few control the resources and the thought process of the vast majority.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2004, 06:50:58 pm »
« Edited: June 25, 2004, 06:52:47 pm by MarkDel »

Jens,

OK...you and Al both seem to be missing the point, so I guess I'll have to go back and walk you through this. Since you both seem to think I am misinterpreting the definition of socialism, let me start there and see if I can walk you through the argument.

Socialism--An economic and social system where production and ownership of goods and services is controlled by the state rather than private enterprise. This system is characterized by its belief in the utility of goods solely for benefit of society rather than profit. The goal being to create a society that is essentially classless, where individual wealth is subverted in favor of the common good, with government playing the most important role in determining the methods and levels of production. Socialism representing the transitional period between Capitalism and Communism, the latter being the inevitable conclusion of socialist implementation. The final stage being complete equitable redistribution of goods, services and wealth.

Can we agree, that this is the historical definition of socialism? It's not out of a textbook, but a paraphrase of what I've learned over many years of study on this subject. If you say "no" then we probably have very little else to discuss because you have ignored several hundred years of history that went into that definition.
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2004, 10:13:40 am »

Al and Jens,

Gee, that's nice that you guys have an alternate definition of socialism, but I think you'll find that 99% of the respected academic and legal scholars in the world would define socialism in roughly the same terms that I have. Sorry fellas, but that IS the historical definition no matter how much you guys want it to be your watered down, 21st Century Euro, pseudo-leftist definition.

So how would you two define socialism?

PS--Go find a dictionary or read any historical interpretation and you will see that I'm right
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2004, 10:16:35 am »

"I have said, both in writing and from the platform many times, that the impetus which drove me first into the Labour movement, and the inspiration which has carried me on in it, has been derived more from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth than from all other sources combined"

Al,

That's nice, but what exactly does that have to do with your definition of socialism?
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2004, 06:56:05 am »

Al and Jens,

What happened to you guys in this thread? I thought you were supposed to come back and tell me, the dictionary and the respected academicians of the world why we have the wrong definiton of socialism?
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2004, 09:54:18 pm »

It's Nationalize no 's'.

LOL!!!

Yeah, the Euro boys are not allowed to use "s" instead of "z" again until they come in here and defend their indefensible misinterpretation of the word "socialism"
Logged
MarkDel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,152


« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2004, 01:47:13 pm »

Jens,

Go buy a dictionary and read the definition of socialism. Go ask a respected professor what the historical definition of socialism is...you won't like the answer.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC